CHLer shoots burgler in Manvel

[boomerang]

I would respectively suggest that this case is a great example of restraint on the part of a shooter

Or he could be a bad shot. Not enough information.

[jmra]

I love how when someone hits low they say "I aimed low". Hear that at the range alot.

[KD5NRH]

I found a good website from a Jewish Rabbi explaining the right of self defense.

Oh good: I've never quite trusted the Methodist Rabbis.

[57Coastie]

I would respectively suggest that this case is a great example of restraint on the part of a shooter

Or he could be a bad shot. Not enough information.

How do you get more information? Ask the bad guy? The only witness other than Yoakum. Meanwhile, I guess the theme is that if someone says he did not shoot to kill he may be lying. I guess you could run over to Manvel and ask Mr. Yoakum to elaborate.

I love how when someone hits low they say "I aimed low". Hear that at the range alot.

Once more. "The shooter may be lying."

A fairly consistent tragic mindset is emerging here: "If one feels there is a lesser option reasonably available, shoot to kill." If this is what the vaunted Castle Doctrine really means, I want no part of it. I am ready to defend my judgment and my acts before a court of law at any time.

Even worse earlier: "The bible tells me so."

A question: is this what our state certified CHL instructors teach us now? "Even if there is another reasonable option, shoot to kill." Be honest now. I'm sure the DPS, and possibly even the legislature, would be interested in the answers to this question given by this particular group.

I cannot but hope that Magnum, a respected member of the bar, is reading this thread, it having possibly, only possibly, been suggested twice now that he may have committed at least one very serious crime: Obstruction of justice.

Respectfully,

Jim

[Purplehood]

Doesn't sound like the CHLer had thought through the implications of carrying a gun. You need to be mentally prepared to shoot someone if you are going to carry.

I think it is great that he feels bad about having to shoot the guy. It should never be an easy thing. But you should always be able to do it, if you need to.

[Fangs]

I think the general consensus is "aim where your shots are most likely to hit and stop the threat before he reaches you with his knife" instead of "out of pity aim where you're most likely to miss or inflict minor damage to the threat in hopes that today is your lucky day".

[Purplehood]

I think the general consensus is "aim where your shots are most likely to hit and stop the threat before he reaches you with his knife" instead of "out of pity aim where you're most likely to miss or inflict minor damage to the threat in hopes that today is your lucky day".

I agree with "shoot to stop the threat", and I don't think any less of a guy/gal for feeling bad about shooting. Yeah, be ready to do it, but for heaven's sake don't act like it wasn't something horrific that you had to do.

[koolaid]

It is interesting to see how a criminal defense lawyer has responded publically to a self-defense shoot.

[57Coastie]

It is interesting to see how a criminal defense lawyer has responded publically to a self-defense shoot.

Why? It must be a senior moment on my part which hides the relevance of Yoakum being a criminal defense lawyer.

Honestly, I'm not trolling. I really don't get it.

Jim

[priusron]

I live on CR 81. This is the first I have heard of this. Did this happen over by Hanselman off 1128?

Ron

[witchdoctor575]

i live in alvin, this story is very close to home. However, I am not under any false beliefs that just because I live in the "country" that I am safe. In fact I would say living in the country has certain downfalls like, lengthened police response times, lengthened medical services response times etc... which all means I must be even more self reliant for all aspects of life. Safety being paramount. I think the kid involved should take his wounding as a sign from god and get his stuff together and the home owner should seriously re-evaluate his resolve for defending his family. Had that knife weilding BG been intent on doing harm, aiming low could have proved deadly for him and his family.

[Jacob Staff]

This guy sounds like he had thought out what to say ahead of time and did a very good job in my opinion. It would be hard for the average citizen or even the press to find any wrong or even questionable acts.

1) I did not want to shoot anyone.
2) I am having a hard time with this and need counceling.
3) I have training and a CHL, it was not an accidental shot.
4) I was in fear of my live and the life of my daughter.
5) A shot in the shin stopped the bad guy and it was "aimed". May not be a center of mass shot but it did the job.

"You can have my knife" priceless.

[fickman]

There's a couple of false presuppositions that have gone unchallenged in this thread so far:

1. Shooting center mass is not "shooting to kill".
2. Shooting somebody in the leg is not "not shooting to kill".

A firearm is deadly force no matter where you aim it. There are critical arteries in the legs that - if hit with a bullet - could cause death as quickly as an abdominal or chest wound would. Most victims of a handgun wound LIVE.

You can be in a lot of trouble if you "shoot to injure". Why? Because you used deadly force and then admitted that you didn't feel like the BG's death was necessary. If the situation doesn't warrant the possibility of the BG dying, then you shouldn't be using deadly force.

For proper self-defense, we're in the business of stopping threats. We aren't looking to kill. We aren't looking to injure. We are looking to stop the actions of another that seriously threaten our lives, the lives of others, or serious bodily injury.

A center-of-mass shot is the highest probability shot that one can make. It has several benefits:
- Possibly reduce the number of times you have to shoot the BG, which could end up saving his/her life
- Reduce the likelihood of an errant shot hitting an innocent bystander, in which case not only will your conscience be guilty, you will be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and possibly manslaugter
- Increase the possibility of you, your loved ones, and other innocent lives of escaping unharmed from a situation that required deadly force

Once the threat is stopped, you should stop using deadly force.

[heliguy972]

As a Christian he should feel guilty for 1.) not keeping the big dog close to scare away an intruder and 2.) not turning the alarm on NOT for shooting the intruder. Either of these might have avoided the confrontation

[chabouk]

There's a couple of false presuppositions that have gone unchallenged in this thread so far:

1. Shooting center mass is not "shooting to kill".
2. Shooting somebody in the leg is not "not shooting to kill".

A firearm is deadly force no matter where you aim it. There are critical arteries in the legs that - if hit with a bullet - could cause death as quickly as an abdominal or chest wound would. Most victims of a handgun wound LIVE.

You can be in a lot of trouble if you "shoot to injure". Why? Because you used deadly force and then admitted that you didn't feel like the BG's death was necessary. If the situation doesn't warrant the possibility of the BG dying, then you shouldn't be using deadly force.

Thank you, these are important points. Lots of people have memorized the "I shot to stop the threat" mantra, but haven't really taken to heart the logic and meaning behind that phrase. It's not a magic stay-out-of-jail phrase, and won't work if you don't understand what deadly force is, and when it is justified.

For proper self-defense, we're in the business of stopping threats. We aren't looking to kill. We aren't looking to injure. We are looking to stop the actions of another that seriously threaten our lives, the lives of others, or serious bodily injury.

A justified self defense shooter should be able to say: "I fired my gun to stop the attacker. I aimed center mass, because that's how the police train. If I missed him and he stopped the attack, that's great. If I wounded him and he stopped, that's good. If he died instantly, that's sad, but the important thing is that his attack was stopped."